Systems and methods for minimizing a total number of cuts to separate media instances imaged onto a media sheet

ABSTRACT

A system and method utilizes strategies, priority rules, specifications, and comparisons to calculate the fewest number of cuts to separate individual instances from an imaged media sheet. Embodiments of the systems and methods may produce an optimal or more efficient arrangement of the media instances on an imaged media to minimize a total number of cuts to separate the instances, and thus reduce an overall cost.

PRIORITY CLAIM The present application claim, priority from U.S.Provisional Application No. 61/570,345, filed Dec. 14, 2011, which isincorporated herein by reference in its entirety. COPYRIGHT NOTICE

This disclosure is protected under United States and InternationalCopyright Laws.© 2012 Outback Software, Pty, Ltd. All Rights Reserved. Aportion of the disclosure of this patent document contains materialwhich is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has noobjection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent documentor the patent disclosure after formal publication by the USPTO, as itappears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, butotherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.

SUMMARY

The invention generally relates to systems and methods that utilizecomputer-readable instructions for determining a minimum number of cutsrequired to cut a media sheet having pre-arranged, imaged mediainstances. One environment where the invention may be employed is thecommercial printing industry. By way of example, the production ofcommercially imaged media sheets may include more than one mediainstance of a product, or more than one product, that can be positionedon the media sheet (e.g., paper). Before imaging, the instances may bedisplayed in a layout, which may take the form of a virtual depiction orrepresentation of the instances selectively arranged using somecombination of the computer-readable instructions that may includestrategies, rules, specifications, tests, and/or priorities. A finalizedand approved layout would eventually take the physical form of the mediasheet during the printing process.

In one aspect of the present invention, a computer-implemented method todetermine a number of cuts for a fixed layout includes the steps of (1)identifying a particular media instance; (2) determining a cuttingrelationship of the particular media instance relative to a plurality ofneighboring media instances of the instance. Determining the cuttingrelationship includes the sub-steps of (A) determining a cut type foreach edge of the particular media instance; (B) determining a relativewidth of the particular media instance and the relative widths of theplurality of neighboring media instances; and (C) determining a cutalignment. For the particular media instance, step (3) includesprioritizing the plurality of neighboring media instances based on a setof priorities that evaluate relative widths of the plurality ofneighboring media instances; and the final step (4); for the particularmedia instance, includes joining the plurality of neighboring mediainstances into strips that require the fewest cuts to separate.

In another aspect of the present invention, a computer-implementedmethod to optimize a printing layout to minimize a number of cuts for aplurality of media instances includes the steps of (1) collecting afirst subset of the plurality of media instances that have a similarwidth, wherein the plurality of media instances in the first subset maybe cut apart from each other with a single cut; (2) joining a first oneof the plurality of media instances with the first subset; wherein thefirst subset has a narrower width and can be cut apart from the firstone of the plurality of media instances with the single cut; (3)collecting a second subset of the plurality of media instances that havea similar width, wherein the plurality of media instances in the secondsubset may be cut apart from each other with a double cut; and (4)joining a second one of the plurality of media instances with the secondsubset; wherein the second subset has a narrower width and can be cutapart from the second one of the plurality of media instances with thedouble cut.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

In the drawings, identical reference numbers identify similar elementsor acts. The sizes and relative positions of elements in the drawingsmay not be necessarily drawn to scale. For example, the shapes ofvarious elements and angles may not be drawn to scale, and some of theseelements may be arbitrarily enlarged or positioned to improve drawinglegibility. The sizes and relative positions of elements are onlyrepresentative examples of a larger variety of possible sizes andpositions.

FIG. 1 is a top, plan view of a media sheet having a first instance withextended imagery according to an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 2 is a flowchart of a decision process for determining a minimumnumber of cuts required to separate individual media instances from animaged media sheet having more than one media instance according to anembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 3 is a top, perspective view of a particular media instance beinganalyzed for its relationships to neighboring instances according to anembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 4 is a diagram showing different examples of how a widthrelationship of a particular instance may be evaluated with respect to aneighboring instance according to an embodiment of the presentinvention,

FIG. 5 is a diagram showing different possible alignments of cut edgesof a double cut according to an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 6 is a decision process flowchart for finding and recordingneighboring instances for a particular instance according to anembodiment of the present invention;

FIGS. 7A and 7B cooperate as a decision process flowchart fordetermining a relationship of neighboring instances according to anembodiment of the present invention;

FIGS. 8A and 8B cooperate as a decision process flowchart for joiningneighboring instances or sub-strips into larger sub-strips or stripsaccording to an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 9 is a diagram showing a plurality of instances with unaligneddouble cuts according to an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an optimal five cut plan for unaligneddouble cuts according to air embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 11 is a diagram showing a contrasting, sub-optimal six cut plan forthe unaligned double cuts from FIG. 10;

FIG. 12 is a top, plan view of a plurality of instances joined togetherusing one or more priority rules according to an embodiment of thepresent invention;

FIG. 13 is a top, plan view of a plurality of instances joined togetherusing one or more priority rules according to an embodiment of thepresent invention;

FIG. 14 is a top, plan view of a plurality of instances joined togetherusing one or more thy rules according to an embodiment of the presentinvention;

FIG. 15 is a top, plan view of a neighboring instances that are notaligned on either edge that may be separated by a single cut accordingto an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 16 is a top, plan view of a neighboring instances that are notaligned on either edge that may be separated by a double cut accordingto an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 17 is a flowchart of a decision process for optimizing a printinglayout to minimize a number of cuts for a plurality of media instancesaccording to an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 18 is a decision process flowchart for combining instances andsub-strips into a layout to minimize a total number of cuts for a mediasheet according to an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 19 is a top, plan view of strips constructed as double cut stripswith a variable length according to an embodiment of the presentinvention; and

FIG. 20 is a BEFORE and AFTER diagram showing how to move an instance ora sub-strip to align two strips according to an embodiment of thepresent invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Embodiments of the invention may be operational with numerous generalpurpose or special purpose computing system environments orconfigurations. Examples of well known computing systems, environments,and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with the inventioninclude, but are not limited to, personal computers (PCs), servercomputers, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems,microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, programmable consumerelectronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers,distributed computing environments that include any of the above systemsor devices, and the like.

The invention generally relates to computer-readable instructions andmethods for determining a minimum number of cuts required to cut a mediasheet having a plurality of pre-arranged, imaged “instances” (anindividual product or image). In the commercial grin ng industry, theproduction of commercially imaged media sheets may include more than onemedia instance of a product, or more than one product, that can bepositioned on the media sheet. Before imaging, the instances may bedisplayed in a layout, which for purposes of this description means avirtual depiction of a number of media instances arranged using somecombination of computer-readable instructions that may includestrategies, rules, specifications, tests, and/or priorities. A finalizedand approved layout would eventually take the physical form of the mediasheet. In turn, the media sheet is the physical print stock materialafter instances have been imaged onto the blank print stock pursuant toa finalized and approved layout. And the print stock is the printingmedium to be used in the commercial printing process (generally paper,but may be other non-paper materials). After imaging, the individualinstances are typically cut apart into to individual products (e.g., astack of business cards for company A and a stack of business cards forcompany B) by a “guillotine cutting” process. The cost to operate thecutting machine may be compiled and analyzed to understand a cost percut ratio for a particular layout.

Thus, one objective of the present invention includes computer softwarethat determines a minimal number of cuts for a pre-arranged layout whileanother objective determines an optimal layout that results in a minimalnumber of cuts. For purposes of the present description, the term“pre-arranged” means that the individual instances are already arrangedin a particular manner, but such an arrangement may not necessarily bean optimal arrangement. Another embodiment of the present inventiongenerally relates to generating an optimal layout of instances in amanner that will result in the most efficient method of cutting themedia sheet into individual instances to minimize the number of cuts. Anobjective of both embodiments is to employ a variety of strategies,rules, specifications, tests, and/or priorities to calculate a fewestnumber of cuts to separate individual media instances in an attempt tominimize the number of physical cuts, which may minimize the overallcutting costs.

The embodiments of the present invention may advantageously reduce oreliminate the complexities of gang printing and minimize stock waste byplacing as man media instances on a media sheet as possible. Moreover,the embodiments of the present invention may also consider printer/presscapabilities and product specifications such as grain direction. By wayof example, the systems, software modules and methods described hereinmay operate to automatically and dynamically determine how many mediasheets are needed, an optimum layout for each media sheet, and acost-effective printing method, press, and media sheet size.

In general, the fewer cuts made to a media sheet the better becausecutting takes time, and more time equates to increased costs in theprinting process. The exact cost of cutting is dependent upon severalfactors such as the cost and capabilities of the specific equipment (andpossibly human operator) that will perform cutting. The factors caninclude such things as the quantity of sheets that can be cutsimultaneously, the total number of sheets to cut, the speed of settingup the critter for this layout, the speed of getting material into thecutter to cut, and the speed of getting cut instances out of the cutterand passed along to the next stage of their handling. In view of thesevariables, the cost of cutting is directly dependent on the number ofcuts that actually have to be made. To reiterate, an object of thepresent invention is to determine the minimum required number of cuts tophysically separate all media instances on the media sheet.

In one embodiment, the systems and methods determine the number of cutsrequired for any unique layout of instances that are to be imaged ontothe media sheet. This information may be dynamically calculated wheneversomething changes on a layout. In addition, this information may beprovided to customer or potential customer for guidance on cutting costsrelated o their media. This information may also be used with otherinformation as criteria for ranking the overall production cost for agiven layout configuration. By way of example, at least one embodimentof the present invention determines a list of proposed cut lines, whichmay be specified by end points, relative to the media sheet. Theseproposed cut lines may be displayed with the layout, for exampleoverlaid onto the layout, to diagrammatically justify the validity ofthe proposed cuts. In one embodiment, the layout and cut lines may bedisplayed in an animated movie on a display screen that will highlighteach cut on relative to all of the instances arranged in the layout.

For the purposes of the present description, the term “INSTANCE” shallinclude a single occurrence of an imaged item on a media sheet thatneeds to be separated from a neighboring instance, by cutting. The term“IMAGED,” “IMAGE” or “IMAGERY” should be broadly interpreted to includeprinted subject matter, photographs, and any other media that isintended to be reproduced or otherwise applied onto a tangible medium.Additional processing may be required to convert the cut instance into afinished product. The term “PRINT STOCK” includes the printing medium tobe used in the commercial printing process (generally paper, but may beother non-paper materials). Accordingly, blank print stock is the printstock prior to ally type of image (printed matter, designs, photographs,etc.) being applied. The term “MEDIA SHEET” includes the physical printstock material after instances have been imaged onto the blank printstock pursuant to a finalized and approved layout. The media sheet mayinclude multiple identical media sheets that form a stack. The term“LAYOUT” includes a virtual depiction of a number of media instancesarranged using some combination of computer-readable instructions thatmay include strategies, rules, specifications, tests, and/or priorities.A finalized and approved layout would eventually take the physical formof a media sheet. The layout may provide a description and/or display ofthe geometry, location, size and orientation of one or more instancesthat may eventually be applied to the media sheet.

The term “CUT” includes a straight line that divides the media into twomedia sheets while physically separating at least two instances appliedto the respective two media sheets. By way of example, the cut mayseparate a stack of identical media sheets each into two stacks of mediasheets, whereby each stack includes identical media sheets within therespective stack. The term “SINGLE CUT” includes neighboring instancesthat share a common border, and can therefore be cut using a single cutthat touches the abutted edges of the neighboring instances on eitherside of the single cut. The terra “DOUBLE CUT” includes neighboringinstances that have a gap between them, and therefore require two cuts(one for each edge of each instance) to separate them. By way ofexample, a double cut is commonly required for instances that haveimagery extending beyond the edge of the instance. Additionaldescription and illustration of single and double cuts rill be providedbelow.

The term “TRIMMING” includes a cutting process that removes undesiredscrap media from an instance to ensure that the instance is the finalsize of the desired product. Trimming may be a natural byproduct ofother cuts, or may require an additional cut to remove excess blankprint stock from one or more instances. The term “BINDERY-TRIMMING”includes a separate process that only occurs to instances that arebound. Bindery-trimming is process that is integrated into a bindingoperation, and is unrelated to trimming as an aspect of the cuttingprocess as just described above. The term “CUT PLAN” includes a plannedsequence of cuts and trimming that divide the media sheet intocustomer-deliverable media instances.

The term “SUB-STRIP” includes an instance or another sub-strip joinedwith one or more sub-strips to construct a new strip. A sub-strip may bea single instance, or may itself be a strip. This will be explained inmore detail below. The term “STRIP” includes a collection of neighboringinstances and/or sub-strips that either take the form of a column stripor a roar strip. The column strip is one sub-strip wide by one or moresub-strips tall. The sub-strips in a column strip would share a commonleft and right edge. By way of example, the column strip may also bereferred to as a “1×N” strip. The row strip is one sub-strip tall by oneor more sub-strips wide. The sub-strips in a row strip would share acommon top and bottom edge way of example, the row strip may be referredto as an “M×1” strip. Finally, the term “ALIGNED EDGES” refers to edgesof two instances that both on the same straight line.

During a printing process in which multiple instances are on the mediasheet, each cutting decision may impact the next cutting decision, andso on. In the aggregate, the time, and thus cost, of these cuttingdecisions may significantly impact the final price paid by a customer.FIG. 1 shows a media sheet 100 having a first instance 102 and aneighboring instance 104 the illustrated embodiment the instances 102,104 may take the form of business cards each having differentinformation. The first instance 102 includes imagery 106 (shown ashorizontal lines) that extend beyond a right edge 108 of the firstinstance 102. Due to mechanical inaccuracies in the cutting process, theimagery 106 may have to be imaged beyond the right cut edge 108 of theinstance 102, and even possibly extend beyond a left cut edge 110 of theinstance 102, to guarantee that the imagery 106 still extends to each ofthe cut edges 108, 110 after cutting. Generally, there are twoconflicting concerns when imaging beyond the cut edges 108, 110 of theinstance 102. First, the imaging must guarantee that the imagery 106touches both edges 108, 110 of the instance 102. Second, the imagingmust guarantee that he imagery 106 does not overlap or intrude on theneighboring stance 104. To balance these conflicting concerns, the mediasheet 100 may include a gap 112 between the first instance 102 and theneighboring instance 104. Instances imaged according to the illustratedembodiment require a cut at the facing edges (cut edge 108 of the firstinstance 102 and cut edge 114 of the neighboring instance 104), thus twocuts (i.e., a double cut) are required to separate the instances 102,104 when imagery 106 extends into the gap 112 between the instances 102,104.

Many imaging technologies are unable to image instances at the outsideedge of the sheet. In some exceptions, the media instances might notrequire imagery at the edges and may be placed coextensively with anoutside edge of the media sheet. Some imaging technologies have thehighest quality imaging in the center of the sheet,and therefore it ispreferable to have unallocated sheet media placed around the outsideedge of the sheet. Generally though, the cutting process of the mediasheet often generates scrap media at the outside edges of the mediasheet that needs to be trimmed. Preferably, the scrap media should beremoved with as few cuts as possible.

In some cases, a cutting sequence of an arrangement of media instancesmay produce a same number of total cuts. By way of example, an M×Narrangement of instances with aligned edges that are to be cut apartusing all single cuts, or all double cuts, would necessitate the samenumber of total cuts, assuming the outside edges have already been cut,regardless of the sequence or order in which the cuts are performed.

An example of a single cut analysis n may take the form of anarrangement of “M” instances wide by “N” instances tall with all havingedges aligned with neighboring instances that are to be cut apart usingsingle cuts on all edges. A first single cut sequence separates thecolumns by making M−1 cuts and then each column needs to be cut intoinstances by making N−1 cuts in each column. Thus, a total number ofcuts using the first single cut sequence may be computed as: TotalCuts=(M−1)+(M*(N−1)) which may be simplified to (M*N)−1.

Alternatively, a second single cut sequence separates the rows by makingN−1 cuts and then each row needs to be cut to instances by making M−1cuts in each row. Thus, a total number of cuts using the second singlecut sequence may be computed as: Total Cuts=(N−1)+(N*(M−1)) which may besimplified to (M*N)−1. Consequently, using either the first single cutsequence or the second single cut sequence for separating thearrangement of he “M×N” instances results in h same number of totalcuts.

An example of a double cut analysis may take the form of an arrangementof “M” instances wide by “N” instances tall with all instances havingedges aligned that are to be cut apart using double cuts on all edges.Again, two different cutting sequences may produce the same number oftotal cuts.

A first double cut sequence separates the columns by making double cutsbetween each of them, or 2*(M−1) cuts and then each column needs to becut into instances by making double cuts, or 2*(N−1) cuts in eachcolumn. Thus, a total number of cuts using the first double cut sequencemay be computed as: Total Cuts=2*(M−1)+(M*(N−1)), which may besimplified to 2*((M*N)−1) cuts.

Alternatively, a second double cut sequence separates the rows by makingdouble cuts between them, or 2*(N−1) cuts and then each row needs to becut into instances by making double cuts between the instances, or2*(M−1) cuts in each row. Thus, a total number of cuts using the seconddouble cut sequence may be computed as: 2*(N−1)+(N*2*(M−1)), which maybe simplified to 2*((M*N)−1) cuts. Consequently, using either the firstdouble cut sequence or the second double cut sequence for separating thearrangement of the “M×N” instances results in the same number of totalcuts.

In contrast to an arrangement cut by all similar cuts, the number ofcuts needed for any M×N arrangement of instances with aligned edges thatare to be cut apart using a mixture of single cuts and double cuts doesdepend upon the order of the cuts. Cutting the double cuts first willprovide the minimum required number of cuts.

By way of example, an arrangement of “M” instances wide by “N” instancestall may have vertical neighbors double cut and horizontal neighborssingle cut. If the single cuts are made first, then it will require M−1single cuts to separate the columns. And, then each column will require2*(N−1) cuts to separate the individual instances from he column. Thus,the total number of cuts may be computed as: TotalCuts=(M−1)+(M*2*(N−1)) cuts, which may be simplified to 2*M*N−M−1.

Alternatively, if the double cuts are made first, then it will require2*(N−1) cuts to separate the rows. And, then each row requires M−1 cutsto separate the individual instances from the row. Thus, the totalnumber of cuts may be computed as: Total Cuts=2*(N−1)+(N*(M−1)) cuts,which may be simplified to N*M+N−2.

Consequently when a mixture of double cuts and single cuts are employedto separate an arrangement of instances, the aforementioned alternativeapproach provides a fewer number of total cuts because2*M*N−M−1>N*M+N−2. This equation simplifies to M*N>=M+N−1. Since “M” and“N” will always be positive integer values this will always be true,thus proving that cutting double cuts first rill be optimal over singlecuts for an aligned arrangement of instances with aligned edges.

FIG. 2 show a method 200 to determine a number of printing cuts for aplurality of pre-arranged media instances. In one embodiment, the method200 generally determines a minimum number of cuts required to separateindividual media instances from an imaged media sheet having more thanone media instance. The media instances are analyzed relative toneighboring instances, prioritized and then collected together intostrips. Essentially, the instances may be joined together into strips,and then the strips and/or instances may be joined together into largerstrips until all instances are contained in a single strip.

At step 202, a particular media instance is identified or otherwiseselected for analysis relative to one or more neighboring mediainstances. At step 204, a cutting relationship of the particular mediainstance relative to a plurality of neighboring media instances of theinstance is determined. At step 206 and as part of the process fordetermining the cutting relationship, a cut type (e.g., a single cut ora double cut) for each edge of the particular media instance isdetermined. At step 208 and further as part of the process fordetermining the cutting relationship, a relative width of the particularmedia instance and the relative widths of the plurality of neighboringmedia instances are determined. At step 210 and further as part of theprocess for determining the cutting relationship, a cut alignment isdetermined. At step 212 and for the particular media instance, theplurality of neighboring media instances are weighted or otherwiseprioritized based on a set of priorities, rules and/or guidelines thatevaluate relative widths of the plurality of neighboring mediainstances. Lastly at step 214 and for the particular media instance, theplurality of neighboring media instances are joined into strips thatrequire the fewest cuts to separate. These strips may be visuallydisplayed in a layout. The details involved to accomplish theaforementioned method 200 will now be described with respect to FIGS.3-16.

The analysis of a layout 120 of media instances 122 considers eachinstance in the layout o determine its relationship with its neighboringinstances. Referring to FIG. 3, each instance 122 is cut into arectangular shape regardless of the final product shape. Thus, eachinstance 122 has four edges. For simplicity of explanation, regardlessof the edge of the instance being considered (top, bottom, left orright) in an un-rotated layout, a particular instance 124 (e.g., theinstance being analyzed) is rotated so a top edge 126 may be considered.The method to be described hereinafter may apply to all edges of allinstances 122 in the layout 120.

The analysis of the layout 120 may be accomplished using a four stepprocess, which may be summarized as (1) finding the neighboringinstances for the particular instance, (2) determining a relationship ofthe particular instance to the neighboring instances, (3) determiningthe relative width of the particular instance with its neighboringinstances, and (4) checking for double cut situations.

In the first step, the top edge 126, bottom edge 128, left edge 130 andright edge 132 of the particular instance 124 are considered. Eachinstance 122 in the layout 120 is tested to find all instances that arenearest to the edge being considered, which is the top edge 126 of theparticular instance 124 in the illustrated embodiment the example shownin FIG. 3 and using the process 12.5 in FIG. 6, instances 134, 136, 138and 140 are potential neighbors with the particular instance 124 becausethey at least partially overlap an extension of an edge width dimension142 as shown by dashed lines 144. Only the closest potential neighborsare actual neighbors. The closest neighboring instance means that itsnearest edge is not farther than the farthest edge of any otherpotential neighbor. Thus, instance 138 would not be considered aneighbor because the nearest edge of instance 138 is further than thefarthest edge of instance 136. Although it is not as obvious withinstance 140, the logic applies, and instance 140 is not considered aneighbor because the nearest edge of instance 140 is further than thefarthest edge of any closer neighbor, which in this case is true forboth instances 134 and 136.

Ire the second step and once all neighbors are known for the particularinstance 124, the relationship of the particular instance 124 to itsneighbors may be determined. Again each edge is considered separately.Determination of relationship of neighbors at this stage determines twoaspects of the relationship with neighbors. The first aspect is the cuttype needed to separate neighbors (e.g., a single cut, a double cut, orno cut if there is not a neighbor at the edge being considered. If anyneighbor is single cut on a given edge, then the edge is considered asingle cut edge. The second aspect is the relative width of an instanceand its neighbors, as discussed next.

Ire the third step, determining the relative width of the particularinstance 124 and its neighbors is done next. If the edge underconsideration of the particular instance 124 has neighbors, then thewidth of the union of all neighbors to that edge is compared with theextension of the width of the edge of the particular instance 124.

Each side of the edge of the particular instance 124 has three possiblesituations. The neighbors can extend beyond the side, be aligned withthe side, or be inside of the edge width boundaries. Considering threepossibilities for each side gives a total of nine possiblerelationships, which are illustrated in FIG. 4 and where the instanceswith numbers inside represent the particular instance 124 from FIG. 3and the instances above the numbered instances represent a union of allneighbors for the edge being considered of the particular instance.

These nine relationships may be classified into the following fourcategories based on the impact on cutting. The first category is whereone or more neighbors extend beyond the edge width boundaries, and thusthe particular instance would be considered to have wider neighbors.From FIG. 4, the first category includes instances 146, 148, 150, 152and 154.

The second category is when both sides of the edge width boundaries arealigned with the side edges of the neighbor, and thus the particularinstance would be considered to have neighboring instance of matchingwidth. This is illustrated by instance 156.

The third category is Then no neighboring instances extend beyond theedge width boundaries. At least one side of the edge width boundary doesalign with a neighboring instance and no neighbors exist in the oppositedirection. This is illustrated by instance 158 if no neighbors exist toits left, or by instance 160 if no neighbors exist to its right.

The fourth category is when no neighbors extend beyond the edge widthboundaries, and do not have edge alignment that can be categorized bythe third category above. This would be instance 162, and possiblyinstance 158 or instance 160 depending on the location of neighboringinstances.

After cut type and neighbors' widths are determined, there is oneadditional special case that needs to be identified. It is the situationwhere a double cut with a neighbor of matching width it is important toknow if the edges of the double cut are aligned with any neighbors. Thisis determined by looking to the sides of the particular instance beingconsidered, and to the sides of the neighbors to the edge beingconsidered.

There are two different situations of interest. The first situation ofinterest is whether zero, one or two of the double cut edges are alignedwith neighbors. There are two types of misaligned double cuts that needto be considered. The first type of misaligned double cit is illustratedin FIG. 5 by three examples. The first example 164 shows when both cutsare aligned. The second example 166 shows when only one cut s aligned.And the third example shows when no cuts are aligned. The secondsituation of interest is when the instance being considered has noimmediate neighbor as is shown the left case 170 illustrated in FIG. 9and is also considered to have no cuts aligned, which will be describedin more detail later.

FIG. 6 shows a decision process 123 for finding and recording neighborsfor the particular instance 124 (FIG. 3). FIGS. 7A and 7B show adecision process 125 for determining a relationship of neighboringinstances.

After all instances in the layout are classified for their neighbor cuttype, neighbor width, and cut alignment then instances are combined withneighbors in an order that results in a construction of strips thatrequire the fewest cuts to cut apart. Neighbors are joined into stripsusing the ten (10) priority rules provided below and using a decisionprocess 127 illustrated in FIGS. 8A and 8B. First, instances with onlyone neighbor of a given priority are considered. Next, instances withmultiple edges matching the given priority are considered because forsimilarly prioritized cut types it does not matter which orientation iscut first. When joining narrower neighbors, the narrowest neighbor inthe layout is joined first, followed by next narrowest neighbors. Asneighbors are joined into strips, this new strip may produce a situationwith neighbors of higher priority. After neighbors are joined then thehighest priority items may be reconsidered. The priority rule in whichinstances may be joined into strips are, as follows in order fromhighest to lowest priority.

Priority 1: Neighbors of matching width separated by a double cut withno cuts aligned. Normally, due to the mathematics, double cuts should beperformed first, and therefore are used to join strips together last.There is an exception to this priority rule when executing the doublecut first would leave one or more untrimmed instance that could betrimmed by cutting the opposite order first. Situations 170 and 172 areillustrated in FIG. 9 where the particular instance 124 is shownrelative to its neighboring instances 174.

FIG. 10 shows an optimal five cut plan for unaligned double cuts usingthe scenario 172 (FIG. 9). FIG. 11 shows a sub-optimal six cut plan forunaligned double cuts using the scenario (FIG. 9). The contrastillustrates that if single cuts were employed after double cuts, thenthe cutting process would take six steps, which would be considered tobe sub-optimal. For ease of reference, the individual instances arelabeled as instances 1, 2, 3 and 4. If single cuts are done first, thenit will take five cuts to separate and trim the instances. Therespective cuts are labeled as such in FIGS. 10 and 11 respectively.

Priority 2: Neighbors of matching width separated by a single cut.Simply, due to the mathematics of cutting, single cuts should normallybe cut last. It would be unlikely for a situation to occur where asingle cut separating instances of identical cut edge width will reducethe number of cuts by cutting any earlier.

Priority 3: Neighbors of smaller width separated by a single cut, if theinstances being joined share a common edge toward other neighbors, thenthe Priority 3 rule deems that the narrowest instances should be joinedtogether first. For non-uniform sized instances there will becircumstances where neighboring instances of different sizes are to bejoined. FIG. 12 shows the operation of the Priority 3 rule of joiningtogether narrower neighbors based on alignment. In the illustratedembodiment, it can be seen that instance 176, and instance 178 share acommon edge 180 that is facing another neighboring instance 182. Acutting plan for this situation would require a total number of four (4)cuts if instances 176 and 178 are joined first, and then instance 182 isjoined later. If instances 178 and 182 are joined first then the cuttingplan would require time (5) cuts. When narrower neighbors are joinedwith a wider instance an intermediate sub-strip is created to containthe narrower neighbor, but is made to be the same width as the instancebeing considered.

Priority 4: Neighbors of smaller width separated by a single cut, if theinstances being joined do not share a common edge toward otherneighbors, joining narrowest instances first. For non-uniform sizedinstances there will be circumstances where neighbors of different sizeare to be joined. In this case the order that the items are joined canmatter. Still referring to FIG. 12, instance 176 and 178 share thecommon edge 180 that is facing neighboring instance 182. This case willcreate a cutting plan with a minimum number of four (4) if instances 176and 178 are joined first, and then instance 182 is joined later. Ifinstances 178 and 182 were joined first then this would result in aminimum of five (5) total cuts to separate the instances. Preferably,instances 176 and 178 should be joined in the Priority 3 step and theninstance 182 should be joined in the Priority 4 step. When narrowerneighbors are joined with a wider instance an intermediate sub-strip iscreated to contain the narrower neighbor, but should be made to have thesame width as the instance being considered.

Priority 5: Neighbors of matching width separated by a double cut withonly one cut aligned. In the situations illustrated in FIGS. 13 and 14,single cuts are actually of equal priority with double cuts that haveonly one cut aligned, and definitely higher priority for joininginstances 184 into strips 186 than double cuts with both cuts aligned.FIG. 13 shows that if the single cut occurs first, then these instances184 may be separated using five (5) cuts. FIG. 13 also shows that if thedouble cut occurs first, then these instances 184 may still be separatedusing five (5) cuts, hence the equal priority. FIG. 14 shows that if thealigned double cut occurs first then these instances 184 may beseparated using six (6) cuts. However,if the misaligned double cutoccurs first, then these instances 184 would require a minimum of, even(7) cuts to be separated.

Priority 6: Neighbors of matching width separated by a double cut thatboth cuts make a continuous cut with neighbors. According to thediscussion earlier, double cuts should be the first cut done, andtherefore are lowest priority for grouping neighbors into strips.

Priority 7: Neighbors of smaller width separated bar a double cut, if heinstances being joined share a common edge toward other neighbors,joining narrowest instances first. This is given very low priority toallow all possible matching width neighbors to be joined together intostrips before joining neighbors of variable width.

Priority 8: Neighbors of smaller width separated by a double cut, if theinstances being joined do not share a common edge toward otherneighbors, joining narrowest instances first. This is given very lowpriority to allow all possible matching width neighbors to be joinedtogether into strips before joining neighbors of narrower width.

Only after all possible strips are constructed using the above eight (8)priority rules then the following two (2) priority rules may beconsidered:

Priority 9: Wider neighbors separated by a single cut. This priorityrule covers the situations where neighboring instances are not alignedon either edge, and neither is narrower than the other. Referring toFIG. 15, the two instances 188 are not aligned on either edge, and thusare not separatable by a single cut. Without the Priority 9 rule, thePriority 10 misaligned, neighboring instances could not be combined intoa strip.

Priority 10: Wider neighbors separated by a double cut. Referring toFIG. 16, neighboring instances 190 are not aligned on either edgeseparated by a double cut. The Priority 10 rule is employed to cover thecase where neighboring instances 190 are not aligned on either edge, andneither is narrower than the other.

Joining instances together into strips is effectively the reverseoperation of cutting. Therefore it is simple to determine the number ofcuts by reversing the order that the strips were joined together. Abrief example of this is to consider two instances horizontally next toeach other. Joining these instances into a strip produces one strip fromthe two instances. Cutting is the reverse operation separating thesingle strip into the two individual instances.

Another embodiment of the present invention includes a process forcalculating a number of cuts for an aligned arrangement of instances. Itis straightforward to identify an arrangement of instances with alignededges. This is done by comparing the top, bottom, left, and rightcoordinates of instances with other instances, and making sure that nounaligned instances exist within the bounds of the arrangement. When thearrangement of instances is identified, then calculating the cutsincludes applying the mathematical formulas discussed above in theparagraphs preceding the description of FIG. 2 while considering thekinds of cuts used in the arrangement. This process provides a count forhe total number of cuts with no need to perform the strip buildingapproach. This process may be used for any arrangement of alignedinstances from the smallest grid up to a complete layout of allinstances on a sheet. This process may also be used in combinationwithin any other process described herein.

FIG. 17 shows a method 300 for generating a layout for optimal cuttingaccording to yet another embodiment of the present invention. Morespecifically, FIG. 17 shows the method 300 for optimizing a printinglayout to minimize a number of cuts for a plurality of media instances.At step 302, a first subset of the plurality of media instances thathave a similar widths are collected together when the plurality of mediainstances in the first subset may be cut apart from each other with asingle cut. At step 304, a first one of the plurality of media instancesis joined with the first subset when the first subset has a narrowerwidth and can be cut apart from the first one of the plurality of mediainstances with the single cut. At step 306, a second subset of theplurality of media instances that have a similar width are collectedtogether when the plurality of media instances in the second subset maybe cut apart from each other with a double cut. Lastly at step 308, asecond one of the plurality of media instances is joined with the secondsubset when the second subset has a narrower width and can be cut apartfrom the second one of the plurality of media instances with the doublecut.

Determining the optimal layout for a collection of instances is similarto constructing strips from instances that are in the layout. Instancesare categorized based on their height, width, and which instances andedges could be single cut when neighbors. Often instances may beconsidered for both orientations (swapping height and width), but forsome instances rotation may be restricted based on a requiredrelationship between the instance orientation and the substrateorientation (for instance substrate grain direction, or imagingtechnology restrictions).

Depending on the instance imagery, it is possible to have instances thatcan be single cut from some neighboring instances id would require adouble cut to be separated from other neighboring instances. Forneighbors to be single cut, the imagery extending beyond the edge of aparticular instance must match the imagery at he edge of the neighboringinstance. One example of this would be an instance with a backgroundcolor that is imaged beyond the instance edge. If two instances sharethe same background color, then they can be neighbors and single cutapart, whereas two instances with different background colors wouldrequire a double cut between the

In one embodiment, joining individual instances into strips may beaccomplished using the following priority rules to minimize or optimizea total number of cuts required to adequately separate the instances.Refer to FIG. 18 for an illustration of a decision process 400 forcombining instances and sub-strips into a layout for minimum cuttingusing the hereinafter described priority rules.

A purpose of a first or a highest priority rule is to eliminate as manyunnecessary double cuts required between instances. This is done byputting neighbors together hat can be single cut apart, but would needto be double cut apart from other neighbors. When constructing a layoutfrom instances, information about which instances can be single cut whenneighboring other instances is considered to produce as many single cutsbetween neighbors, and reduce the number of double cuts required in alayout. Sub-strips that have the fewest potential neighbors that theycan be single cut apart from are joined first. If sub-strips cannot bejoined with a single cut, then rotating one or more instances byone-hundred eighty (180) degrees in the sub-strips is tested todetermine if it would facilitate joining the sub-strips with a singlecut while maintaining the single cut relationship with existingneighbors. Within the context of the first priority rule, a firstsub-priority includes joining sub-strips together that are the samewidth (measured along the common edge) and can be single cut apart, butwould require being double cut apart from other neighbors. The samewidth includes either of the joined sub-strips being able to be expandedto match the width of the other sub-strip. When two or more sub-stripsmay match width in this way the sub-strip requiring the minimumexpansion is chosen.

Still within the context of the first priority rule, a secondsub-priority includes joining sub-strips together with one narrower(measured along the common edge) and can be single cut apart, but wouldrequire being doable cut apart from other neighbors.

A purpose of a second or a lowest priority rule is to collect as minstances (or strips) as possible that must be cut apart from each otherwith a double cut. Within the context of the second priority rule,previously, joined sub-strips are separated by a double cut when thesub-.strips are of equal width when measured along the edge beingjoined. The same width includes either of the joined sub-strips beingable to be expanded to match the width of the other sub-strip. When twoor more sub-strips may match width in this way the sub-strip requiringthe minimum expansion is chosen.

Still within the context of the second priority rule, sub-strips may bejoined together with one narrower (measured along the common edge andcan be single cut apart, but would require being double cut apart fromother neighbors. As each sub-strip is joined the process starts overlooking for highest priority neighboring sub-strips from among instancesyet to be placed and strips already constructed. As sub-strips arejoined, length is limited to the remaining unallocated area on thesheet.

FIG. 19 shows a strip 402 constructed of double cut sub-strips 404, whennarrower strips containing double cuts are joined with other strips itmay be advantageous to expand a width of one of the double cuts in thestrip to match a width of a neighboring instance. This can be donewithout any additional cuts, and will remove one unnecessary cut fromthe joined strips.

For all strips having more than a single instance and double cut gutters(i.e., not all single cuts) the “length” of the strip 402 designated bythe letter “L” in FIG. 19 becomes a variable because one gutter may beopened up so that a total strip length can match neighboring strips toshare a common cut. This will reduce the number of cuts needed for thefinal layout by one.

FIG. 20 shows a “BEFORE” and “AFTER” view of a layout 406 having aplurality of instances 408 in which a sub-strip may be moved to aligntwo strips.

Instances may have variable internal dimensions to optimize and thereare a variety of different kinds of instances. Most instances collectedtogether in a layout to be imaged on a media sheet media are of fixeddimensions based on the final instance. However, some instances mayencounter another processing step called bindery-trimming in processingthe instance. The bindery-trimming process is a completely differentprocess from cutting and, does not add additional cost, and occursregardless of the amount to be bindery-trimmed off. These instances thatwill be bindery-trimmed can have their instance size modified withincertain limits dependent upon bindery-trim equipment capabilities.Generally, the two variable internal dimensions for a bindery-trimmedinstance are the non-jog, and face trims. These variable dimensions areperpendicular to each other. Therefore, by varying each of themindependently each dimensions of the instance may be modifiedindependently.

Generally for a bindery-trimmed instance there will only be one instanceplaced on the media sheet. In this case, one objective will be to havethe instance size match the media sheet size by modifying the variableinternal dimensions to produce the desired total instance size.Bindery-trimmed instances can also be placed in multiple sets on themedia sheet, in which case another objective will be to have theinstance size match the portion of the media sheet allocated to theinstance (for example, half or quarter sheet), and therefore requireonly single cutting the instances apart, but no additional trimmingwould be required in the cutting process.

The various embodiments described above can be combined to providefurther embodiments. Patent Publication No. 2005/0012961 entitled“Arranging Components on a Sheet” is incorporated herein by reference inits entirety. In addition, any other U.S. patents, patent applicationsand publications referred to in this specification are also incorporatedherein by reference in their entireties. Aspects can be modified, ifnecessary, to employ devices, features, and concepts of the variouspatents, applications and publications to provide yet furtherembodiments.

These and other changes can be made in light of the above detaileddescription. In general, in the following claims, the terms used shouldnot be construed to limit the invention to the specific embodimentsdisclosed in the specification and the claims, but should be construedto include all types of media imaging, media cutting and mediaprocessing that operate in accordance with the claims. Accordingly, theinvention is not limited by the disclosure,but s ad its scope is to bedetermined entirely by the following claims

1. A computer-implemented method to determine a number of printing cutsfor a fixed layout, the method comprising: identifying a particularmedia instance; determining a cutting relationship of the particularmedia instance relative to a plurality of neighboring media instances ofthe instance, wherein determining the cutting relationship comprises:determining a cut, type for each edge of the particular media instance;determining a relative width of the particular media instance and therelative widths of the plurality of neighboring media instances;determining a cut alignment; for the particular media instance,prioritizing the plurality of neighboring media instances based on a setof priorities that evaluates relative widths of the plurality ofneighboring media instances; and for the particular media instance,joining the plurality of neighboring media instances into strips thatrequire the fewest cuts to separate.
 2. The method of claim 1 furthercomprising prioritizing the plurality of neighboring media instancesbased on another a set of priorities that evaluates whether widerneighbors are separatable by a single cut or a double cut.
 3. The methodof claim 1 wherein determining the cut type includes determining the cuttype is a single cut.
 4. The method of claim 1 wherein determining thecut type includes determining the cut type is a double cut.
 5. Themethod of claim 1 wherein determining the cut type includes determiningthe cut type is a combination of single cuts and double cuts.
 6. Themethod of claim 1 wherein prioritizing the plurality of neighboringmedia instances based on the set of priorities includes considering theset of priorities according to a selected hierarchal order.
 7. Themethod of claim 1 wherein evaluating the relative widths of theplurality of neighboring media instances includes expanding a width ofat least one media instance.
 8. The method of claim 1 wherein joiningthe plurality of neighboring media instances into strips includesaligning at least two trips along a common edge.
 9. Acomputer-implemented method to optimize a printing layout to minimize anumber of cuts for a plurality of media instances, the methodcomprising: collecting a first subset of the plurality of mediainstances that have a similar width, wherein the plurality of mediainstances in the first subset may be cut apart from each other with asingle cut; joining a first one of the plurality of media instances withthe first subset; wherein the first subset has a narrower width and canbe cut apart from the first one of the plurality of media instances withthe single cut; collecting a second subset of the plurality of mediainstances that have a similar width, wherein the plurality of mediainstances in the second subset may be cut apart from each other with adouble cut; and joining a second one of the plurality of media instanceswith the second subset; wherein the second subset has a narrower widthand can be cut apart from the second one of the plurality of mediainstances with the double cut.
 10. The method of claim 9 furthercomprising expanding a width of the second subset.
 11. The method ofclaim 9 further comprising performing a bindery-trimming process on atleast one of the plurality of media instances.